"A good stock of examples, as large as possible, is indispensable for a thorough understanding of any concept, and when I want to learn something new, I make it my first job to build one." – Paul Halmos

Archive for November, 2009

I guess I didn’t plan this very well! Instead of completing one series I ended one and am right in the middle of another. Well, I’d really like to continue this series, but seeing as how finals are coming up I probably won’t be able to maintain the one-a-day pace. So I’ll just stop tagging MaBloWriMo.

Let’s summarize the story so far. is a commutative ring, and is the set of maximal ideals of endowed with the Zariski topology, where the sets are a basis for the closed sets. Sometimes we will refer to the closed sets as varieties, although this is mildly misleading. Here denotes an element of , while denotes the corresponding ideal as a subset of ; the difference is more obvious when we’re working with polynomial rings, but it’s good to observe it in general.

We think of elements of as functions on as follows: the “value” of at is just the image of in the residue field, and we say that vanishes at if this image is zero, i.e. if . (As we have seen, in nice cases the residue fields are all the same.)

For any subset the set is an intersection of closed sets and is therefore itself closed, and it is called the variety defined by (although note that we can suppose WLOG that is an ideal). In the other direction, for any subset the set is the ideal of “functions vanishing on ” (again, note that we can suppose WLOG that is closed).

If it wasn’t clear, in this discussion all rings are assumed commutative.

Given a variety like we’d like to know if there’s a natural way to decompose it into its “components” . These aren’t its connected components in the topological sense, but in any reasonable sense the two parts are unrelated except possibly where they intersect. It turns out that the Noetherian condition is a natural way to answer this question. In fact, we will see that the Noetherian condition allows us to write uniquely as a union of a finite number of “components” which have a natural property that is stronger than connectedness.

Let’s think more about what an abstract theory of unique factorization of primes has to look like. One fundamental property it has to satisfy is that factorizations should be finite. Another way of saying this is that the process of writing elements as products of other elements (up to units) should end in a finite set of irreducible elements at some point. This condition is clearly not satisfied by sufficiently “large” commutative rings such as , the ring of fractional polynomials.

Since we know we should think about ideals instead of numbers, let’s recast the problem in a different way: because we can write for any , the ascending chain of ideals never terminates. In any reasonable theory of factorization writing and then comparing the ideals , then repeating this process to obtain a chain of ideals , should eventually stabilize at a prime. This leads to the following definition.

Definition: A commutative ring is Noetherian if every ascending chain of ideals stabilizes.

Akhil’s posts at Delta Epsilons here and here describe the basic properties of Noetherian rings well, including the proof of the following.

Hilbert’s Basis Theorem: If is a Noetherian ring, so is .

Today we’ll discuss what the Noetherian condition means in terms of the topology of . The answer turns out to be quite nice.

Hilbert’sNullstellensatzisa basic but foundational theorem in commutative algebra that has been discussed on the blogosphere repeatedly, but thematically now is the appropriate time to say something about it.

The idea of the weak Nullstellensatz is quite simple: the polynomial ring has evaluation homomorphisms sending for some point , so we can think of it as a ring of functions on . The ideal of functions vanishing at is maximal, so a natural question given our discussion yesterday is whether these exhaust the set of maximal ideals of . It turns out that the answer is “yes,” and there are a lot of ways to prove it. Below I’ll describe the proof presented in Artin, which has the virtue of being quite short but the disadvantage of not generalizing. Then we’ll discuss how the Nullstellensatz allows us to describe the maximal spectra of finitely-generated -algebras.

An analyst thinks of the ring of polynomials as a useful tool because, on intervals, it is dense in the continuous functions in the uniform topology. If we want to understand the relationship between and polynomial rings in a more general context, it might pay off to expand our scope from polynomial rings to more general types of well-behaved rings.

The rings we’ll be considering today are the commutative rings of real-valued continuous functions on a topological space with pointwise addition and multiplication. It turns out that one can fruitfully interpret ring-theoretic properties of this ring in terms of topological properties of , and in certain particularly nice cases one can completely recover the space . Although the relevance of these rings to number theory seems questionable, the goal here is to build geometric intuition. You can consider this post an extended solution to Exercise 26 in Chapter 1 of Atiyah-Macdonald.

Probably the first important result in algebraic number theory is the following. Let be a finite field extension of . Let be the ring of algebraic integers in .

Theorem: The ideals of factor uniquely into prime ideals.

This is the “correct” generalization of the fact that , as well as some small extensions of it such as , have unique factorization of elements. My goal, in this next series of posts, is to gain some intuition about this result from a geometric perspective, wherein one thinks of a ring as the ring of functions on some space. Setting up this perspective will take some time, and I want to do it slowly. Let’s start with the following simple questions.

What is the right notion of prime?

Why look at ideals instead of elements?

In this series I will assume the reader is familiar with basic abstract algebra but may not have a strong intuition for it.

Today I’d like to introduce a totally explicit combinatorial definition of the Schur functions. Let be a partition. A semistandard Young tableau of shape is a filling of the Young diagram of with positive integers that are weakly increasing along rows and strictly increasing along columns. The weight of a tableau is defined as where is the total number of times appears in the tableau.

Definition 4:

where the sum is taken over all semistandard Young tableaux of shape .

As before we can readily verify that . This definition will allow us to deduce the Jacobi-Trudi identities for the Schur functions, which describe among other things the action of the fundamental involution . Since I’m trying to emphasize how many different ways there are to define the Schur functions, I’ll call these definitions instead of propositions.